Why don't we have direct democracy /his/?
Parliamentary arguments against direct democracy are a farce. If the people are "unable to rule", then there are some who are more able to rule than others, which undermines the idea of democracy itself.
If the people are logistically unable to rule - but wait, in modern times that's just false.
Direct democracy is long overdue already, and there are a million ways of smoothly implementing it. Direct democracy now!
>>1018587
I don't want to think about that kind of crap
>>1018587
Also, the majority of the population is fucking dumb, I'd rather we pick a handful of men who specialise on leadership and administration management and rotate them before they get greedy.
Fuck your direct democracy
>>1018672
>doesn't notice how paradoxical his post is
>>1018587
Because most countries are not democracies and either a republic(like the US) or some form of parliamentary system where the intention was never direct democracy but limited democracy.
>>1018587
Tell oh muse how would the average man who works 9 to 5, with a family to take care of and has bills to pay find the time to research the complex relationship between countries, and groups within countries to develop a coherent foreign policy?
alright champs lets discuss taxation
>all 300million ppl gather to voice their opinions and then we will vote
>shoot your guns in the air 3 times if you want this citizen expelled from the country
great show, would watch
VOTER FATIGUE
O
T
E
R
F
A
T
I
G
U
E
>>1018672
> Think the majority of the population is too dumb to decide what they want yet smart enough to pick who should decide for them
Brilliant.
>>1018721
Ever heard about Switzerland?
>>1018756
Yeah I heard their political system is a mess
>>1018762
Unlike that of any other state?
And at least they don't have to open their borders to anyone because their politicians got a messiah complex.
>>1018756
Except the Swiss still have many republican systems in place and at best are a semi direct democracy.
Either way this isn't good for your argument because even the most ideal, utopian and educated populace on the planet still needs to factor in a mainly republic style government for their state.
Why is that people that flip burgers for a living, can't balance a fucking credit card, and have never read a single advanced text on politics or economics making choices about politics and economics?
If anything we need less democracy.
Make it so only men over 30 who own their own house are allowed to vote.
>>1018777
> politicians got a messiah complex.
You surely meant bribes.
>>1018847
Mandatory IQ tests would be better.
>>1018877
Politicians have a habbit of fucking thi gs up for yhe greater of their nation/hummanity
>>1018587
Because people are fucking stupid. The republic is more solid, read about it sometime I think there's a book about it.
This way the idiots can vote for someone who's educated in law or something of that nature who's more qualified to make decisions. At this point we're so dumb we can't even elect someone smart, so I see why you're in doubt. The problem isn't the system, it's the stupid people, and trust me you don't want them having more say.
>>1018587
You talk like democracy is something desirable. We all live in republics for a reason you know. separation of power is a much more efficient way to rule than just straight democracy.
>Swiss subhumans infiltrating /his/
Do something, gookmoot. Range ban their IPs.
>>1018847
capitalist pig we see you and you will hang
>>1019012
>the problem isn't the system which gives stupid people a voice
>it's just stupid people
So... you want a non-democratic aristocratic republic, also known as an oligarchy, as Plato advocated?
>>1018587
Swiss here, I wouldn't want to live in any other political system. The idea that people are too bumb to vote on series issues but inteligent enough to vote for the person/party that will dead with those issues is paradoxical.
Of course, I'd imagine it workd best with a smaller relativelly homogeneous population
>>1018587
The overwhelming majority of people don't have the means to pay real attention to politics, economy and governance because of draining work or crippling poverty. This is intentional. It's a lot like how schools try to keep politics out of the classroom by maintaining a 'neutral' position (no such thing) and omitting a lot of critical stuff while focusing on the sciences and arts.
Of course people are stupid, someone out there wants people to be stupid or at least uninformed and passive.
>>1019011
If they're handed the equivalent of a several billion dollars without the experience of loss, hardwork, and sacrifice like pic related, yeah.
>>1019042
>>1018587
Tyranny of the majority, is probably the best argument against direct democracy. In a direct democracy only raw numbers could so minority groups and opinions would be mercilessly smashed by the aggregate. It works for smaller, less diverse nations, but in a country like America, which has a huge diverse population, and regions with vastly different needs and demands direct democracy is less desirable.
Because its expensive and impractical to hold a referendum for every fucking decision.
the UK is almost comically cucked in this regard
>first past the post system
>a constituency with 100 inhabitants is worth the same as a constituency with a million
>if a party's support base is spread out, forget about ever getting elected
yes, i'm mad. look at his image
>ukip gets three million votes
>one seat
>snp gets 1.5m
>twelve seats
>lib dems get 2m
>eight seats
Well it's a difficult issue. Do I want to be ruled by Donald Trump or the mouthbreathers who would elect him? See, with Donald, he at least knows how to con people. He also is able to do the thing he was raised to do, and turn large sums of money into larger sums of money and this means he is probably is smarter than much of his voter base
Direct Democracy in the US would be scary
>>1019211
Oh by the way, t. conservative, before we get any of those hilarious jokes about cuckoldry that absolutely are not tiresome
Democracy is retarded.
Mob rule is a bad idea.
Most people are idiots and have no clue.
They are prone to propaganda/deception.
A political ideology should be based on facts and good concepts, not numbers.
>>1019226
Good thing no one listens to you, though.
>>1019172
'Tyranny' of the majority, as opposed to being ruled by a disconnected business elite and their inhuman technocrats.
Direct democracy has worked beyond city-states level. And those said cities had like some tens of thousands of people actually eligible to vote at best. And voted for far fewer and simpler things than is required today.
So direct democracy is something for a horribly decentralized libertarian society resembling ancient Greece.
>>1018750
Sorry you're American and your people are dumb enough to vote bush
I find this "people are too retarded to rule" argument just silly. It's only parroted by narcissists who are mentally on the level of 16 year-olds. Who decides whose opinion is correct anyway? Someone wants more lumber mills for the industry, someone else thinks trees look pretty.
Direct democracy is the only solution I see, it also saves loads of money on the political apparatus, and if the people would directly decide foreign politics, there would be almost no wars.
>>1019553
>And voted for far fewer and simpler things than is required today
People of today are just as informed of political issues as they were in a Greek polis. If you think the common man of today can't understand arguments for and against TTIP (f.e.) and their implications, you are badly mistaken. Politicians themselves almost always lack the relevant education.
>>1019513
The problem with being ruled by technocrats being?
>>1019226
>Mob rule is a bad idea.
Who rules then if not the mob? The industrialists? No, thanks!
>>1018587
Direct democracy is shit. California has a form of it and it's fucking retarded.
>>1020055
They further their own interest
>>1018587
Because idiots like this guy >>1018672 are totally brainwashed into the collecto-cult of the ruling ideology. Democracy is the only legitimate form of government and it would take some truly stupefying naivete to seriously support elections at this point in history. Sure, parliamentary governments may remain democratic for a few years but anyone who thinks they won't grow irreparably corrupt after that point is simply ignorant. The problem with government is that the few are only concerned with the few, and elections hardly change that reality at all. It really is sad to see democracy, something that has hardly ever been tried, to be so ruthlessly stamped out by the ruling classes.
>>1018587
People would only bother to vote on issues they care about causing everything to become dominated by extreme opinions and a governement that is unable to govern with consistency.
>>1019205
b-b-b-but ukip were evil nazis!! democracy not working is ok when it benefits me!!
>>1020090
>People would only bother to vote on issues they care about
And they can vote for a representative for everything else. Look at the OP pic.
>governement that is unable to govern with consistency
What does that even mean? This is just another empty phrase. Should a government make mistakes consistently also?
If public opinion changes, then its for a good reason!
>>1020055
Technocrats are the kind of people who would build death camps if it was a cost efficient solution to something, technocrats are basically the human equivalent of a machine overlord as depicted by dystopian science fiction.
>>1020118
>public opinion changes
>must be good reason
Only a perfect world with a perfect media could make that true
>>1018587
Because the masses are asses
>>1020172
>hurr durr ebil media controls the people
>better let industrialist puppets rule
I don't quite follow
>>1018587
See: Democracy - in its pure form - is a system doomed to failure. Disregards an elementary factor: The masses are idiots. This is usually not bad.
Individually, people are smart enough to live and make decisions relevant to their own lives. However, en masse, when issues beyond their personal domain appear, they are complete imbeciles.
It is necessary to counteract the will of the masses. Then, according to the classical formula, you need an aristocratic body and a monarchical authority; containment elements for the ten zillion "I"s that each retard yells at the time of collectively abolish or violate the rights of others.
I don't really believe in democracy anymore.
I wish we still had the same system of government that the Founders envisioned.
The average voter is fucking dumb, and frankly I don't think I'm qualified to pick a leader either. I don't do nearly enough reading or research or pay attention to world affairs half as much as I should to decide on something larger than a Mayor if you ask me.
Abolish the electoral college, and in its place allot voter points. For each candidate, a voter would have one vote. They may choose to "spend" all their votes on one candidate, or relegate them by betting across the board - but this way, voters would not feel like they're wasting their vote - even if they give one to each candidate, it counts toward the overall total for each candidate, and counterbalances other votes.
Mathematically, this is the most equal way to manage a direct democracy (can't remember where I read or heard this; the research is out there, though).
Plus, make voting day a mandatory paid holiday, automatically register people to vote (require opt-out in order to waive that right), and utterly destroy the Citizens' United ruling that enables corporations to make unlimited contributions - in fact, set hard limits on campaign fundraising, and require any amount over, say, $1 million go into a general fund to provide free resources for voter education and pay poll-workers, print materials, provide streamlined and secure procedures, etc.
Yeah, I know I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
>>1022341
>when issues beyond their personal domain appear, they are complete imbeciles.
>you need an aristocratic body and a monarchical authority
>>1018587
>Parliamentary arguments against direct democracy are a farce. If the people are "unable to rule", then there are some who are more able to rule than others, which undermines the idea of democracy itself.
So what? It's true regardless of whether it "undermines the idea of democracy itself. "
>>1022550
>set hard limits on campaign fundraising, and require any amount over, say, $1 million go into a general fund to provide free resources for voter education and pay poll-workers, print materials, provide streamlined and secure procedures, etc.
Hey, that's fucking nice! Nothing undermines democracy more than unequal means of publicity.
But I don't see why candidates would be necessary at all - they should be optional. Most people have the time to sit down on a Sunday afternoon, log in online, and vote yes-or-no on a few questions, especially if the issue is of personal interest. The other issues can be left to candidates.
>>1019063
>.gommunist memes
Eww. It shouldn't be harder to be funnier than /pol/tards, yet here you are.
Here in Brazil is Direct election, but i disagree, people really dont read and care soo fuck it
tyranny of the majority
>>1018587
Would you trust a sample of random schmucks with the decision to raiser or lower interest rates?
This thread was moved to >>>/pol/71719232
